Jones attorney: USADA has no compelling evidence

Published: May 24, 2004 8:00 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Marion Jones was presented with evidence of her possible steroid use by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency on Monday, but none of it was compelling enough to ban the star sprinter from the Olympics, her lawyer said.I didnt see anything today that would provide a basis for them to go forward, attorney Joseph Burton said. From my mind, what ought to come out of it is, she should be exonerated.Jones and her attorney met with USADA officials for about three hours in Colorado Springs. She was shown evidence obtained from the federal grand jury investigation into the Bay Area drug lab she has been linked to.If she had something to hide, she wouldnt have answered every question, said Burton.Burton wouldnt elaborate on what evidence of possible steroid use they were shown, but said only an admission or a positive test would warrant a ban. USADA says it has the power to bring a drug case against an athlete with circumstantial evidence.It is clear from those comments that Mr. Burton rejects the idea of a non-analytical positive and contends that only athletes who test positive or admit to a violation can be sanctioned, said Travis T. Tygart, USADAs Director of Legal Affairs. Without commenting on the specifics of any case, USADA confirms that Mr. Burton is absolutely incorrect in his position.Last week, sprinter Kelli White accepted a two-year ban after being confronted by documents seized in the investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative.Officials confronting Jones did not have the same kind of evidence they used against White urine samples from BALCO and a schedule of drug dosages according to a representative of Jones, who spoke on condition of anonymity.Jones, who won five medals at the 2000 Sydney Games, requested the meeting and urged officials to retest the samples in an effort to prove she has not used performance-enhancing drugs, Burton said.We asked for the old samples to be retested for the very simple reason that we know that Marion Jones is drug-free and we know that any retest of old samples would show that, Burton said. As a result of this request, we have now learned that USADA has no knowledge of any old samples to retest.This news is astounding. This is hard to believe.Jones has said she would sue USADA if it kept her from going to the Athens Olympics without a positive test. But USADA said the only recourse for an athlete suspended for drug use is to go through arbitration.Jones has admitted having a limited relationship with BALCO founder Victor Conte, one of four people indicted in an alleged steroid-distribution ring. Jones testified last year in front of the grand jury.The New York Times reported last month that a $7,350 check from Jones bank account was written to Conte in 2000, just before the Sydney Olympics. The Times said the check was signed by Jones former husband, shot putter C.J. Hunter, who failed four separate steroids tests before the Sydney Games.Burton argues thats not enough to keep an athlete out of the Olympics.I would think a positive test or an admission by that athlete that the athlete took performance-enhancing drugs. Perhaps thats sufficient, Burton said. But short of those two things ... its highly questionable whether or not there should be any other basis for banning an athlete.Jones requested the unusual meeting with USADA after numerous reports linked her to the Bay Area drug lab.A report in the San Francisco Chronicle last week said USADA had drug tests from some track athletes that trained with support from BALCO, but Burton said Jones was not one of them.There is no evidence and no reason to go forward on any purported drug violation into Marion Jones, Burton said. What they will do in the future I dont know.Tygart said Jones refused to allow USADA to transcribe or record the session.This request by USADA shows an alarming lack of understanding about how the investigative process works, Burton said. Anyone with the least bit familiarity with the interview process knows it is not normal procedure to have a court reporter present for the interview.